Arabic Practice
Our Language Analysts work with lots of different written materials. It’s important to understand what’s being said, but also the context. Why not give it a go? Read the article and see if you can answer the questions correctly. (Answers are below.)
Back to Language Analystsواشنطن: توقع استمرار العنف الى ما بعد ولاية بوش
على رغم اعلان الادارة الاميركية انها لن تحدد وقتاً معيناً لحكومة نوري المالكي كي تتسلم المهمات الامنية, وانها لن تغير استراتيجيتها بل ستستخدم تكتيكاً جديداً, إلا أن سفيرها في بغداد زلماي خليل زاد أكد ان "النجاح في العراق ممكن من خلال جدول زمني واقعي."
الى ذلك, وقبل اسبوعين من انتخابات الكونغرس الاميركي, شن خليل زاد و قائد القوات الاميركية في العراق الجنرال جورج كايسي هجوماً واسعاً على ايران وسوريا, ووجها الى البلدين تهمة العمل لتقسيم العراق, من خلال دعمهما الانقسام الطائفي, بالتعاون مع "القاعدة".
وقال خليل زاد ان الصراع "لبناء عراق ديموقراطي موحد هو التحدي الذي يواجهه عصرنا", والذي "سيحدد مستقبل الشرق الأوسط والأمن العالمي". وأضاف ان "القوى التي تمثل معسكر التطرف الذي يضم لا "القاعدة" وحدها, بل ايران وسورية, يحاولون جاهدين عرقلة تقدمنا مع العراقيين ... انهم يخافون نجاح العراق ويريدون عرقلة عملنا من خلال تدفيعنا ثمناً غالياً بإطالة الصراع"
وأكدت وزيرة الخارجية البريطانية مارغريت بيكت أن "لا جدول زمنياً للانسحاب من العراق", معتبرة ان هذا الأمر "يسير خطوة خطوة" وتحديد موقع خادع للانسحاب سيكون خطأ. وتابعت أن قوات التحالف "تركز حالياً على إعداد القوات العراقية وتجهيزها لتولي المهمات الأمنية في البلاد". واعتبرت تعامل العراقيين مع الاضطرابات التي شهدتها العمارة قبل أيام من دون دعم من قوات التحالف إشارة مشجعة للغاية إلى تطور كفاءة أجهزتهم الأمنية.
ورداً على سؤال عما إذا كان التاريخ سيعتبر الحرب على العراق "كارثة للسياسة البريطانية" قالت "نعم. ربما يكون الأمر كذلك وربما لا. لكن المهم أن لدينا مسؤوليات تجاه الشعب العراقي ونحن نضطلع بها, وهذا ما نفعله".
1. What is the American administration not going to set?
2. What does the American ambassador have to say on that matter?
3. What did General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad accuse Iran and Syria of doing?
4. Khalilzad said that the struggle to build a united democratic Iraq was the challenge which faced our age. What else did he say it would do?
5. What did the British Foreign Secretary consider as an extremely encouraging sign?
1. What is the American administration not going to set?
A specific timetable for handing over security tasks to the al-Maliki government.
2. What does the American ambassador have to say on that matter?
He confirmed that “success in Iraq was possible by means of a realistic timetable”.
3. What did General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad accuse Iran and Syria of doing?
They accused them of seeking to split Iraq by means of their support for
sectarian division, in co-operation with al-Qaeda.
4. Khalilzad said that the struggle to build a united democratic Iraq was the challenge which faced our age. What else did he say it would do?
It would “define the future of the Middle East and world security”.
5. What did the British Foreign Secretary consider as an extremely encouraging sign?
The Iraqis' handling of the disturbances witnessed a few days ago in al-'Imara without any support from the Allied Forces.
Arabic Article - English Translation
Washington: Violence Expected to Continue (until/even) after Bush’s Presidency
Despite the announcement by the American Administration that it would not set a specific timeframe for the government of Nuri al-Maliki to assume (responsibility for) security affairs, and that it would never change its strategy but rather adopt a new tactic, the US Ambassador to Baghdad, Zelmay Khalilzad, confirmed that success in Iraq was possible by means of a realistic timetable.
Added to this and (just) two weeks before the US Congress elections, Khalilzad and the Commander of the US Forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, launched a wideranging (broad) attack on Iran and Syria, accusing both countries of seeking to split Iraq by means of their support for sectarian division, in co-operation with al-Qaeda.
Khalilzad said that the struggle to build a united democratic Iraq was the challenge which faced our age and which would define the future of the Middle East and world security. He added that the forces representing the camp of extremism, comprising not simply al-Qaeda but also Iran and Syria, were striving to impede their (ie US) progress with the Iraqis, that they (ie the extremist forces) feared (US) success in Iraq and wished to obstruct (US) activity by making them pay a high price and prolonging the war.
The British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, confirmed that there was no timetable to withdraw from Iraq, believing that the matter would proceed step by step and that fixing a misleading deadline to withdraw would be a mistake. She continued saying that the Allied Forces were now concentrating on preparing and equipping the Iraqi Forces to assume (responsibility for) security matters in the country. She considered that the Iraqis’ handling of the disturbances witnessed a few days ago by (ie in) al-‘Imara without any support from the Allied Forces was an extremely encouraging sign of the growing (developing) capability of their security apparatus.
In response to a question (ie When asked) about whether history would view the war in Iraq as a ‘disaster for British policy’, she replied “Yes! May be, may be not. But the important thing (to remember) is that we have responsibilities towards the Iraqi people and we accept them (are well aware of them) and this is what we are doing.